Same as the title. I always like reading the classics more. The post-modernist work are so.... dull and the language is not so elegant.
If you look at my bookshelf, most the books sitting there are classics. American classics mostly. I like how authors back in the early days treat every single word with care and attention. I just like their word choices, it's very different from our current modern language. Not saying authors these days don't do well. I just think the language of our era is too common for us to appreciate. What will our grandkids' grandkids think about our language today? It makes me wonder if an author ever gets a warm welcome from their own era, as compared to the authors that went before them. Time will tell, I guess.
I don't know what post-modern literature is but, having skimmed the Wiki page (Wiki is always right) I don't think I'm much of a fan. I do like most of the classics I've read.
While the classics probably are classics for a reason I find those I've read - or otherwise come across - dull. I prefer modern literature. I don't think that is the same thing as postmodern literature, though...
I'm unclear on the question, and hearing in my head, "...both kinds: Country and western." That is, my impression from the phrasing of the question is that you're talking about the only two choices. Do you just mean "old books versus new books" or are you choosing two types of literature from a sea of many types, and asking people to choose which of the two they prefer?
Oh, well in that case I don't think I have a preference. I'm just as happy reading a Victorian novel as one published in 2017, in general. I like some individual modern books over some individual classics, and vice versa.
I didn't even know there was postmodern literature. Just as a phrase that kinda hurts my brain. Again, just flicking through the Wiki page and seeing a bunch of really good books that I never noticed were part of a discrete book, I'm going to take the same attitude to PoMo as I do in other mediums and say "Most of this is bollocks made up by people after the fact to suit their own interpretations of things". Particularly seeing Don Quixote being listed as a postmodern book; yeah it's all cobblers. Perhaps a better question is more if we prefer classic classics or modern classics. Some modern classics might be postmodern, but that's probably not the thing that makes them classics. For my money; modern books. Not that old books are bad, but they don't click with me the same way.
I don't honestly know whether a book can be defined as "post-modern" unless it's a philosophical work. Literature is literature. Some I like and most I don't. Older novels are better because they've stood the test of time. The more recent a novel the harder it is to find a good one.
To be fair though; only the good old books are still being printed where as today there's both the good ones and the schlocky ones all mixed together. And there's very many more books being released, both by publishers and self-publishers.
But you don't know which books published in 2017 will still be read in 2117, so isn't that an illogical argument?
Not if you follow the logic through. After all in 100 years won't todays books be called "old"? To be fair I could've been more precise and said 'on average'. Time is the best critic.
That's certainly true, but in that sense you can look at time as literally just another critic like anyone else; something that helps you separate the good from the bad. And that's certainly useful. But you can't hold it against new books because time has yet to decide if they are good or not.
I think most best sellers nowadays are not of my taste, like the novels by Stephen King. They sell a lot, but I think the ideas and language are not so polished. I doubt whether those books will stand the test of time. It seems that books nowadays are commodities. And publishers tend to make publishing a business, whether than a literary enterprise
It always was a business, at least once the printing press existed. There was a tabloid press sixty seconds after newspapers were invented. If you can go and look up the "Penny Dreadfuls". All books that were printed in the past were printed with a commercial motive, just the market was different. Books weren't popular entertainment at the time, and that meant that they didn't sell 'lowest common denominator' stuff because the poor couldn't read. The only difference between today and back then was that back then they had a different way of expressing things and different social standards for things. That just makes them different, not better. There's some horrible dross from out of the 1700s and 1800s, disgustingly derivative and mealy mouthed prose that never manages to express anything except that the writer is terribly well brought up. We don't hear about that because... There isn't a profit in keeping it in print.
Perhaps not! But we can't very well look at a book and say "I'll read it in a hundred years once my children's children have figured out if it's worth reading" .
I'll read either as long as it's good. That said, the language evolves over time which causes classics to often be a bit harder to read. I've liked a fair number from the early 1900s, but generally books from a couple hundred years ago or more become more deciphering than reading. I also feel like writing has improved over time, likely due to the existence of resources like this site and people developing a better idea of what makes a good book. A good book from a hundred years ago is still better than a bad book from 2o17, so it all depends what I'm reading.
I was confused to because postmodern literature is its own genre (a genre I don't particularly care for), lol. I like many modern books and my bookshelf is filled with them, but I also have classics such as Dracula, Frankenstein, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Edgar Allan Poe, etc. I've read some classics that I can't stand (Pride and Prejudice is one that readily comes to mind) just like I've read some newer books that I can't stand (Firestarter, Twilight, etc.). I really enjoy many books put out by Rick Riordan, J.K. Rowling, Jay Mandal, and Stephen King. I guess I'm more of a "why can't I have both?" type of person in terms of older and newer books.
